Urraca d'Ivrea - Urraca doesn't exist?

What we found out so far, is that Urraca d'Ivrea doesn't exist, but Junca d'Ivrea might have done so. This demand that only existing contemporary source is the only way to prove her existence starts to be bothersome, because we know that a lot of the original sources where sold to private collectors, some have vanished in fires deliberatly or by accidents, some have been destroyed due to that they have been stored incorrectly, mold, damp, etc.

I'm quite sure, that we have a lots of profiles in the medieval tree, that are solely based on second and third hands sources, should we delete them all, or just the ones that do not connect to the self-appointed know it all curators, that cuts and cutrs, but never themselves gets any losses when it comes to the numbers of theirs ancestors?

I think, yes I know, that some of these cutter master, are not affected personally by any cuts they make, isn't that odd? They cut sibblings in the tree, affecting 10.000 of others, but never cuts anything that affects their own lines. Prove me wrong!

heheheh no :D (sorry if I smile I hope you don't mind:)

Urraca is only the name with which the Spaniards have been passing Junca on in their texts since who knows when, and for what play on words: come on, anyone who turns the tree for a few years knows that they keep doing it everywhere ;D

*Urraca de Lombardía-Ivrea è stata aggiunta all'albero da Pablo Romero (Curador).
1 Ago 2009 alle 2:03 AM

PS and don't you dare criticize them because to find an ancient pope on GENI I must first look for how the British renamed him XD (exactly the same behavior:)

No creo en las casualidades creo en las causalidades 25 de Diciembre - 28 de diciembre
https://ec.aciprensa.com/newwiki/index.php?title=Papa_Esteban_IX&am...
Lo dice la Iglesia Catolica
Fuentes.
Bibliografía
Liber Pontificalis, II, 278, ed. DUCHESNE (Paris, 1892); De ortu et obitu just. cœnob. Cas., n. 58, ap. MAI, ScrIpt. Vet., VI, 278; P. L., CXLIII, U. ROBERT ha reunido todo lo que se sabe de Esteban X en su Hist. du P. Etienne X (Brussels, 1892); MANN, Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages, VI (London, 1910); 207.
Horace K. Mann.
Transcrito por Douglas J. Potter. Dedicado al Corazón Inmaculado de la Santísima Virgen Maria .Traducido por Pedro Royo
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Please don't post in this Discussion now UNLESS YOU HAVE FOUND A PRIMARY SOURCE from the time of Gothelo.

ATTENTION Curators, please assist It already destroys the profile, now destroys the discussion.

There is no "discussion", just an argument that keeps going in circles. It's pointless. It's a waste of time.

Yes it's a waste of time, becuase, doing right, would be to undo whatever the curator did to delete the relationships, and reinstall the profile as it was, rename it Junca instead of Urraca, and then place a footnote in the profile, disputed because of lack of contemporary sources, not the same at all as spurios, 0 fake, false, fraud or whatever.

But doing that, would be a great loss of prestige for the curator who hastily destroyed it just as it seems to be the only one reason now left to uphold, stress the importance of having only profiles in the tree that have contemporary sources. quoting..
"Please don't post in this Discussion now UNLESS YOU HAVE FOUND A PRIMARY SOURCE from the time of Gothelo."

Excuse me but Urraca d'Ivrea did in fact exist. I know, because one night I had a dream that I went back in time and met her, and we danced all night, even though she had a gimpy leg. I told her she was my cousin, but she just looked at me and meowed. She did give me a family heirloom ring, but after I woke up I couldn't find the dang thing anywhere.
Sorry, I just had to say something to help deal with the headache I got from this thread.
Weeeeeeeee!

You and me both.

Please don't post in this Discussion now UNLESS YOU HAVE FOUND A PRIMARY SOURCE from the time of Gothelo.

We have two chroniclers, M. Richard de Wassebourg, published 21 dec.1549 and Henri Abraham Chatelain published 1 januari 1708, whom both had charters that they followed, the later one, did not copy the first author, as he got his sources straight from the keeper of those sources at that time.

Both names Junca as the wife, daughter of Berenger II, both names the 3 sons, both corresponds well with each other, and both gives the year 1044 as the death of Gothelo.

The earlier chronicler has a descriptive design, the second has a concise one. Both of them have original sources at their disposal. No surviving source with the wife named Junca have been found today. The name Junca have later at some point been transcribed into Urraca by other writers. But this is nothing new, or odd, just as Livio Scremin claims, and it should not be a guilty reason for deletion out of history.

500 years is not an original source

Unfollowing.

Sharon Doubell If you are goingh to unfollowing this thread, then it is not more then right that you before that undo whatever you have messed up regarding this profile, wife of Gothelo “the Great”

You're biased in a way, that it would be the appropiate thing to do.

Leave this thread after doing that, please!